UNIT 10 PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND NON-STATE
AGENCIES/ACTORS
Structure
10.0 Learning Outcomes
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Need for Partnership
10.3 Bhagidari: A Programme of Government-Citizen Partnership
10.3.1 Working Process
10.3.2 Implementation, Monitoring and Review
10.4 Realising Bhagidari
10.4.1 Bhagidari between RWAs and PUDs/CSAs
10.4.2 Bhagidari on Complex Policy Issues
10.4.3 Internal Bhagidari for Change Management
10.5 Critical Success Gaps
10.6 Bhagidari: A Model of Good Governance
10.7 Conclusion
10.8
Key Concept
10.9 References and Further Readings
10.10 Activities
10.0 LEARNING OUTCOMES
After studying this Unit, you should be able to:
•
discuss the need of partnership between government and citizens at the
local level;
•
explain the features of the partnership initiative, namely, the ‘Bhagidari
Programme’ of the Government of Delhi;
•
highlight the working process and implementation of the Bhagidari
Programme;
•
analyse the critical success gaps in the Programme; and
•
suggest measures to realise the Programme effectively.
10.1 INTRODUCTION
With globalisation, privatisation, and liberalisation making stride in the global
scenario since 1980’s, the centralist, hierarchical, secretive and authoritarian
traditional bureaucracy found itself with new tasks and challenges. The new wave
of reforms called for decentralisation, role for civil society, people’s participation
in administration, administrative responsiveness, public-private partnerships,
FDIs, downsizing, cost cutting, etc. To keep pace with these reforms bureaucracy,
especially at the cutting edge had to change, as it is the point where government
and citizen interface takes place. Administration had to undergo reforms and pay
more attention to the people and the community. They have now to be inclining
towards public interest, public service, democratic citizenship and democratic
values. They have now to facilitate and engage in dialogue and discourse with the
people and involve them as partners in governance and owners in development.
This Unit undergrids this concept of partnership between the government and the
people at the local level.
In this Unit we will discuss a partnership initiative namely the ‘Bhagidari
Programme’ undertaken by the State Government with the people in the National
Capital Territory of Delhi. Whereas the Bhagidari Programme encompasses
various aspects concerning the citizens of Delhi, such as provision of civic
services, school development, women empowerment and social welfare, rural
bhagidari etc; in this Unit we will concentrate on partnership between the citizens
and local administration in the area of ‘civic service delivery.’ The Government
participates in the Programme with the officials of its public utility departments,
that is the BSES and NDPL, Delhi Jal (Water) Board (DJB), Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD), New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC),
Department of Environment and Forest (DOEF), Delhi Development Authority
(DDA), and Delhi Police (DP). In the same way the non-state actors, that is the
citizens, participate in the Programme through their Resident Welfare
Associations (RWAs). These two actors, that is, the government and citizens,
participate in solving and improving the civic problems pertaining to conditions
of water supply, sewage management, electricity supply, environment
sustainability, law and order, etc. jointly.
Before we commence on the discussion on the Bhagidari Programme, we will
succinctly deal with the need for such a partnership.
10.2 NEED FOR PARTNERSHIP
When India became a republic in 1950, it faced the challenges of poverty,
increasing population, weak infrastructure, material constraints, poor agriculture
sector and impoverished social and economic conditions. The first and foremost
task before our leaders was to build the infrastructure for the country and plan for
its agricultural development. The entire task was on our political leaders and civil
servants. Rather, it was the bureaucracy, which played a crucial role in pushing up
the needed development and growth in the post-independence era. But with time,
it gained grounds and became a prime power wielder in the political system. With
legislature and executive lacking time and expertise, delegated legislation and
issuance of necessary directives and guidelines became the function of
bureaucracy. It perfected the technique of rule application, rule interpretation and
rule adjudication. Because of its permanent tenure, superior merit and knowledge,
professional competence, technical know-how and experience and expertise, it
got involved in all aspects of the policy cycle. As La Palambora states that with
the increasing need and pressures of social and economic development,
bureaucracy became unrestrictive especially in the developing nation, where the
major decisions involved ‘authoritative rule-making’ and ‘rule-application’ by the
government resulting in the emergence of ‘over-powering’ bureaucracies.
The need for qualitative accountability and trust was felt as the bureaucratic
administration due to its over centralising tendencies, self-centredness and
conservatism never took the people along with it in decision-making. Public
service delivery became a mundane activity without any involvement of the
people. Public servants could not appreciate the need to bring in social values and
reasoning in policies. Administration working in citadels had no accessibility to
people. Hence, people found them unapproachable and unaccountable.
Recent trends of globalisation, privatisation and localisation have necessitated
that the administrators shed their elite character and change and improve their
rigid behaviour. Instead of being away into self-interests, they have to be now
empathisers of people’s problems. Their mindset and attitude has to undergo
change. Besides being accountable politically they now have also to be
accountable to multi-stakeholders. They have to operate in a transparent fashion.
They cannot be operating from citadels and watertight departments anymore.
They have to work with people to address the grassroots problems. Likewise, they
need to have regular face-to-face interaction with the citizens and involve them in
decision-making. It is only then that we can expect the growth of a publicly
accountable and trustworthy bureaucracy. A new work culture with citizens’
participation and partnership in governance will help the government and
administration to serve the citizens better. In this regard, the partnership initiative
of the Delhi Government proves its mettle by rendering a transparent,
accountable, participative and decentralised citizen services delivery.
In the ensuing sections, we will discuss the Bhagidari Programme being
implemented in the NCT of Delhi by the government and the citizens jointly. The
discussion will focus on the issue of civic service delivery in the municipal areas
of Delhi.
10.3 BHAGIDARI: A PROGRAMME OF GOVERNMENT-CITIZEN
PARTNERSHIP
In pursuance of the tenets of democratic citizenship, organisational humanism and
community participation, the Delhi Government has undertaken a partnership
programme with its citizens. The Programme, namely, Bhagidari, meaning
partnership, was initiated in the late 99/early 2000 by the Delhi Government to
develop partnership, co-sharing and joint stake holding of the citizens and the
government in governance. Inspired with Gandhi’s motto of self-governance and
decentralisation, it has stemmed from the need to provide a definite role to people
in local governance. It is both participative and collaborative with people being
treated as equal partners in development.
The four basic elements of Bhagidari are:
•
Partnership and Participation
•
Governance
•
Citizens /Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs); and
•
Public Utility Departments (PUDs) and Civic Service Agencies (CSAs),
which impact citizens’ lives most at the day-to-day ground level. These
departments and agencies are BSES and NDPL, DJB, MCD, NDMC,
DOEF, DDA and DP.
It was initiative of the Chief Minister (CM), ‘Sheila Dikshit who started the
Bhagidari process of interaction, dialogue, consultation and partnership with the
citizens groups to improve the quality of administration and civic life in Delhi.
Placed in the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO), a Bhagidari Cell has been created to
look into the Programme. The Cell coordinates the activities covered under
Bhagidari. The Programme has been decentralised at the level of the nine revenue
districts, where it is carried forward by the Deputy Commissioner (DC) Revenue,
who is the district co-ordinator. The General Administration Department is the
nodal department that provides financial and administrative support. The Asian
Centre for Organisation Research and Development (ACORD), a professional
body, has been facilitating the entire Bhagidari process.
Based on innovative methodologies and processes, the Programme aims to:
•
create and sustain a sense of ownership, both in citizens’
groups/associations, as well as in PUDs officials;
•
create and sustain a vision of a clean, green and very liveable Delhi;
•
bring citizens more actively as partners into the processes of governance,
rather than see it typically as a top-down leader-centred effort;
•
make the whole model and process very interactive, genuinely
participative and based on professional social science principles of
facilitating and sustaining change in large-systems; and
•
use real time strategic management- group dynamics- to facilitate change
by carefully designing individual and group meetings with multiple
stakeholders and identifying issues/agenda around which dialogue and
consensus can be built.
10.3.1 Working Process
The Bhagidari Cell in the CMO coordinates the entire process of Bhagidari. It
monitors and reviews the implementation of the commitments made by the
RWAs and the officials of the PUDs in the Large Group Interactive Workshops
(LGIWs) on a regular basis. The planning and organising of LGIWs with full
responsibility is devolved to each of the nine DC Revenue. They are responsible
to organise the workshops in districts coming under their purview. The district
officials and area officials are the nodal officers of their district/ area respectively.
They participate on behalf of their departments/agencies in the LGIWs
representing their respective areas.
The working process of the Bhagidari Programme is as follows:
•
Issue Generation: the Bhagidari process begins with the CM generating a
range of issues through questionnaires to the RWAs. The CMO also holds
a series of meetings with the representatives of RWAs to obtain
information on the issues, which RWAs feels are critical. Meetings are
also held with the officials of the PUDs.
•
Top Team: the issues so identified are discussed in a meeting-cumworkshop by a top team consisting of the CM, Chief Secretary, ministers,
all principal secretaries and heads of civic agencies. The aim of the
meeting is to crystallise and achieve consensus on the issues. The final list
of issues is drawn up in consultation with the facilitating agency, that is,
the ACORD. These issues determine the theme and agenda for the ‘design
team.’ The top team also ensures the implementation of the solutions and
follows up mechanisms for monitoring.
•
Design Team: the design team takes up the agenda developed by the top
team. It prepares the first draft of the design of the LGIW. It consists of
15-20 participants representing the stakeholders participating in the LGIW
including the civic agencies and one or two officers from the CM’s office.
It is rather a microcosm of the macro-group that will participate at the
workshop. The design team workshop, which is of 2-3 days depending on
the issues and the participants, opens up the communication channels
among the different stakeholders and enhances the energy and enthusiasm
of all the groups about the LGIW. This builds a confidence about the
possibility of change.
The team works out the programme outline and the methodology of the
LGIW. It lays down the ‘Theme and Purpose’ for the LGIWs through
consensus. The members involve in understanding the LGI process. They
choose/advise/recommend a design for the LGIW. All viewpoints are
considered before putting together the initial basic design. They design
the ‘opening process’, and ‘closing process’ to ensure the participative
nature of the LGIW. The team provides the grouping of issues and allows
one issue to be discussed by a minimum of 4-5 tables. Hence, four to five
issues can be taken up together ensuring all issues are taken up in the
available time. In a nutshell, the design team draws a sketch of the LGIW.
To provide all the data, facts and information to the LGIWs, the design
team takes the responsibility of preparing an information pack for the
participants. A small 6-8 member ‘core design team’ is formed from the
design team and they take the responsibility of preparing the info-pack.
This is collection of technical and financial data, documents, papers,
excerpts from journals, reports, etc., which are relevant for the participants
of the workshop. The principle underlying is that all participants must start
from the same broad database and then add/exchange further information
to build-up the common data.
The design team workshop creates a strong sense of involvement and
ownership and makes the members ambassadors for the LGIW.
•
Large Group Interactive Workshops: the most important in the entire
Bhagidari process is the LGIW. LGIW based on ‘large group dynamics’
and ‘real time strategic change management’ are organised to bring large
groups of RWAs and PUD officials together in intensive and participatory
dialogue on the theme and purpose given by the design team. It is here
that participative, collaborative and solution finding joint action is taken.
Each workshop has 200-400 participants (RWAs and officials) seated in a
table-wise arrangement. Each table has four citizens of the RWAs, two
from one colony, and 5-6 officials of the PUDs and CSAs. Care is taken to
seat nodal area officials of PUDs at the table where representatives from
citizen groups of their area are sitting. In a workshop around 30-35 such
table arrangements are made. The table form of discussion is an example
of horizontal decision-making generating public trust and confidence.
Operating on the principles of multi-stakeholders collaboration, it secures
‘joint ownership,’ of the citizens and government of the change process.
The workshops are of two and a half to three days in duration. On the first
day, the design team presents the theme and purpose. At the end of the
day, the core design team collects the feedback sheets from the
participants, collates the same and presents it before the entire large group
on the next day. The same things are undertaken on the second day also.
On the third day, the groups undergo experiential learning (subconscious
processing for two successive nights), discovering common grounds to
work together and taking ownership for solutions. In this multistakeholder workshop ownership of change is experienced and
strengthened. The ultimate purpose of coming up with joint solutions to
joint problems is served.
The principle of feedback loops is followed to help the groups to share the
output, suggestions, solutions and strategies. Mobile mikes and charts are
used for reporting out agreed solutions and perceptions and displaying all
outputs of all table groups. Sufficient time is given for moving around and
reading the display of outputs of all groups. Quick typing, photocopying
and distribution of all outputs are done. Thus, the whole process works
through transparency and feedback.
This helps in keeping everyone in the picture and in the process
intimately. It energises the table groups and creates a critical mass with a
mandate and a momentum for implementing change. It leads to the
discovery of common grounds, common interests, common problems,
common solutions and a common ownership of the change process.
Action teams are set up on the second and third day of the LGIW with an
agreed time frame for implementing the agreed solutions. The action
teams are constituted from the table groups with a mandate both by the
large group itself as well as the senior leadership group. These teams
implement the most workable solutions emerging from the LGIW on the
basis of the strategies and output by all table groups.
•
Steering Group: subsequent to the LGIW, the design team is constituted
into a steering group. It provides help, assistance and support to all the
action teams by removing roadblocks and speaking to the right people for
smoothening the implementation. It sustains the change momentum by
holding monitoring and review of the implementation on a fortnightly or
monthly basis.
•
Presentation by the CM and the Heads of PUDs/ CSAs: besides the
above, on the first day of the LGIW, there is a presentation by the CM and
the Heads of PUDs/ CSAs about the current status of Delhi. On the last
day also the CM and the HODs respond to queries raised by participants.
In this way the basic principle of feedback and response is designed into
the process, rather than the usual one-way communication.
There is also a ‘case presentation’ of similar initiatives taken up in other
states. The CM’s office contacts and invites the presenters.
Newsletters, progress reports, recognition for successes and sharing of
learning from experiences are used to sustain the momentum, enlarge
support bases and encourage networking and collaboration for sustained
change.
•
ACORD: ACORD is the facilitator of the entire Bhagidari process, that is,
from the beginning to the end. It works with the design team and prepares
the detailed minute-to-minute design and process methodology of every
step for the LGIW. The processes provide for designing of the table
groups for the LGIW in such a manner that they become self-managing,
problem solving and collaborating teams without intervention.
Issues related to each official agency are spread over for three days.
Guidelines are provided for every session for the table groups to secure a
common understanding.
According to the number of issues involved and the number of tables in a
workshop, the issues are so split so that all groups may discuss different
issues. But it is assured that at least 40-50 participants get the opportunity
to deliberate on a common issue and generate solutions. This turns out to
be fairly representative of what the other groups would have to say, as
most table groups have all the stakeholders represented.
Besides, it also plans ‘case presentation in good governance,’ and
‘presentation by the CM and the Heads of the PUDs’ for the workshop.
Further, it designs and plans the fun-break in the workshop (first two
days) to provide entertainment and re-energise the groups. It also designs
the feedback system taken at the end of the first and the second day to
keep the process transparent.
10.3.2 Implementation, Monitoring and Review
After the workshop, the list of solutions is sent to the departments and DC
Revenue offices and the CMO. The Principal Secretary to CM issues a letter to
the head of the department of each participating PUD/ civic agency for appointing
nodal officers, holding monthly meetings with the RWAs and sending monitoring
reports to the CMO. The heads of the departments are designated as the chief
nodal officers and they in turn designate their district nodal officials to implement
the solutions in their district. The district official liaisons with the chief nodal
officer and the DC Revenue and also ensures follow up action of his subordinate
area nodal officers in the district.
The area nodal officers are designated to a group of RWAs. They work under the
supervision of the district nodal officers. They hold meetings with the listed
RWAs within a span of ten days of the conclusion of the workshop. They work
out an action plan in consultation with the RWAs for implementation of solutions
and actions decided in the workshop.
The action plans are in turn send to the district nodal officers who finalises them
in consultation with the chief nodal officers. The plan is then to be implemented
within the budgetary provisions for the annual year by the area officials in
collaboration with the RWAs.
Thereafter, the area nodal officers hold monthly meetings with RWAs for
continuous implementation of the action plans.
The chief nodal officer may also hold a meeting with the district nodal officers to
review the programme as per the action plan in every two months.
Besides the above, the DC Revenue of respective districts hold a review meeting
with the RWAs and the district nodal officers on the last Friday of every month
and send the status report to the CM and the Divisional Commissioner by the 5th
of every subsequent month.
To give due recognition to the officials for their contribution and involvement, the
officials performing a role in the implementation of the Bhagidari Programme
have to give an account of his/her participation in the self-appraisal. The reporting
and reviewing officers will make a specific mention about the involvement and
ability of the officer in implementing the Programme. Significant innovations
introduced by him/her are also mentioned.
10.4 REALISING BHAGIDARI
Bhagidari takes place in three fold ways. We will be discussing them individually.
10.4.1 Bhagidari between RWAs and PUDs/CSAs
The people and the PUDs collaborate with each other to chalk out the ways to
carry out the development programmes and facilitate citywide changes. A brief
description of the joint activities undertaken by citizen groups and PUDs/ CSAs
shows the way partnership is being carried out to address genuine problems and
grievances.
•
DJB
The DJB has involved the people’s groups in the process of water
conservation and water harvesting. It nominates water wardens and
assistant water wardens from the citizen groups and imparts them
specialised training to check and rectify water leakage. Problems, such as,
replacement of the old and leaking pipes and desilting the sewers are
jointly done. Awareness is spread through intensive advertisement
campaigns in water saving, water conservation and against using water
from hand pumps for drinking purposes. Technical and financial help is
provided to the group housing societies and individuals to take up rain
water-harvesting projects. Matters pertaining to payment and collection of
water bills and internal colony sewage system have been devolved to the
RWAs. The problem persisting is taken up again in the workshops.
DVB
The DVB and its private power distribution companies coordinate with the RWAs
in meter reading and handling load shedding and power breakdown. People can
get the change in the meter names through RWAs instead of personally coming to
the offices. The companies involve the RWAs in replacement of low-tension
wires and faulty meters and also in revenue enhancement and its re-investment.
Complaint cells operate for the people. The RWAs now are made responsible for
prevention of power thefts. If the RWAs are facing some problems they take up in
the workshops with the officials. Federation of Indraprastha Extension has
arranged for drop boxes in societies to facilitate payment of bills without any
hassle. The Dilshad Colony RWA has created facility for collection of electricity
bills through drop boxes. The representatives of the RWA attended a seminar on
‘Power and Water Conservation’ through Bhagidari, and has hence educated the
residents to adopt conservation measures.
•
MCD
The MCD has decentralised the house tax collection, maintenance of
community parks and management of community halls and sanitation
services to the RWAs. In cooperation with the RWAs it imposes fine on
littering. For maintenance of sanitation it provides sanitary staff to the
RWAs. The RWAs oversee the work of the sanitary staff, provide for
door-to-door collection of garbage and maintain community bins. They
have to supervise the internal colony sewage system and generate public
awareness on sanitation.
Besides the above, the Municipal Valuation Committee also receives
inputs from the RWAs for implementation of the new tax system.
•
DoEF
DoEF in association with the RWAs have taken the onus of creating green
belt in the city by planting and maintaining saplings. Anti-plastic and antilittering campaigns with RWAs are organised to persuade the non-use of
plastic bags. For this purpose, the Delhi Plastic Bag (Manufacture, Sale
and Usage) and Non Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act 2000 has been
made effective from 2nd Oct. 2001. In many colonies programme of waste
management has been initiated for segregation of biodegradable and nonbiodegradable waste at the source level and for further recycling. It has
taken up the implementation of the ‘Clean Yamuna,’ campaign with the
RWAs.
•
DDA
DDA participates with the people in maintaining community parks,
preventing encroachments and providing solutions for resettlement. They
have also worked out the problem of parking places with the RWAs.
Many RWA federations have developed parks with the help of DDA.
During monsoon the federations have planted trees and shrubs in their
areas.
•
DP
DP involves the RWAs for crime prevention, neighbourhood watch,
verification of domestic helps, prevention of encroachments, regulation of
traffic through the colonies and prevention of illegal sale of liquor. Many
RWAs have installed security system in their colonies in association with
the DP. Camps are set up for the purpose of verification of domestic helps
in many colonies and a list of senior citizens living in the area is generated
by the police from the respective RWAs.
10.4.2 Bhagidari on Complex Policy Issues
The Delhi Government has consulted and taken feedback on certain complex
policy issues from the RWAs. These issues pertain to:
•
Electricity meters and billing by DISCOMS (distribution companies)
Privatisation of power distribution brought certain problems. There were
complaints of high bills and new meters running faster. On feedback from
RWAs, the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) got the new
electronic meters re-tested. Deficiencies were reported and the DERC
reprimanded the DISCOM concerned and issued orders for installation of
new reliable meters.
•
Water regulatory commission proposal
The DJB proposal to set up a water commission made the citizens to
worry as this would indicate the start of a process of privatising the supply
of drinking water. The RWAs and the RWA federations communicated
their concern directly to the CM’s Bhagidari Cell. Taking note of the
anxieties of the citizens the CM made a clear and open statement that
drinking water supply would not be privatised.
•
Unit area method of property tax
RWAs from across Delhi provided colony wise information and feedback
to the MCD on several parameters of categorisation of colonies, such as
quality of infrastructure and level of civic services. The MCD was able to
utilise this feedback to update its own database and make amendments to
the categorisation of colonies as well as fine tune the unit area method as a
system of self-assessment of property tax.
•
Auto-fare revision
The Delhi Government sought the views, feedback and suggestions of the
RWAs and RWA federations on this issue. The rate revision for the autos
was worked out and agreed, reflecting a new balance of moderation
between the key stakeholders- the citizens, the auto-unions and the
Transport Ministry of the Government.
These kinds of involvement helped the RWAs to evolve as a communication
channel between the citizens and the government, policy impact anticipator for
proposed policy matters on the lines of citizens and generator of suggestions and
alternatives with the aim to fine-tune important schemes and changes.
This has transformed the citizen groups as policy partners owing to their detailed
knowledge of local conditions and community perceptions and of the anticipatory
impact of proposed policies and schemes.
10.4.3 Internal Bhagidari for Change Management
The PUDs have used the process of Bhagidari to bring about change management
in their internal organisation working. The DJB undertook a pilot project to bring
about changes at all levels and functions within the organisation along with its
consumer-stakeholders. The following steps were followed in the change
management project:
Step l- confidential one-to-one meetings were held with CEO, Top Management
Team and officers and staff/ unions and associations. This helped in
understanding their perceptions on success factors, strengths and weaknesses and
consumer needs. This was followed by a written questionnaire to one thousand
employees at all levels and functions to understand their perceptions on strengths,
weaknesses, gaps and the environment (internal and external) of the organisation.
Step ll- the feedback from one-to-one meetings and questionnaires were compiled
and put together for consideration by the Top Team consisting of senior most
members including members of the Board.
Step lll- ACORD conducted the one-day ‘Top Team Workshop’ in which 17
senior representatives of DJB participated. It identified six major change goals to
be focused by the LGIE workshop. The six goals pertained to improving customer
satisfaction, water quantity augmentation and supply improvement, reducing
water pollution, increasing revenue, and cost reduction and improvement in
efficiency, productivity, transparency, integrity and accountability.
Step lV- ACORD conducted a two-day Design Team Workshop for a group
consisting of one member from the Top Team and 17 participants from a crosssection representing all departments and all levels of DJB. Based on the agenda of
the Top Team, programme outline of the LGIE was designed with a theme-‘DJBBe Every Customer’s Delight’, and a purpose-‘To Reach the Flow of Clean Water
to Every Household’. The representatives of various concerned stakeholders of
DJB to be involved in the LGIW were finalised and the major issues to be
incorporated during the Workshop were discussed.
The major points to be kept in mind while finalising the list of participants as well
as the table grouping were discussed to ensure that all functions and all levels of
DJB are represented along with external stakeholders on each of the tables.
The change-management process through the large group dynamics with the
citizens has helped them to go into and inside civic agencies including all levels
from Commissioner to area level officials. This has devolved the internal change
management with large civic organisations and helped them to become citizensatisfaction-centric. It has also helped in upgrading system capability and
performance standards of service delivery.
10.5 CRITICAL SUCCESS GAPS
For the Bhagidari to be successful at the ground level, certain critical factors have
to be paid attention:
•
The most important task is to manage the change process. There is
resistance to change from some and some are willing to accept. It took
time to convince the citizens about partnership in which they had to
contribute as much as the government officials. That they can now have
another avenue for redressal of grievances and they are the owners of the
Programme and that they are stakeholders in the development of the city is
taking time to get entrenched.
•
The people’s representatives such as Members of Legislative Assembly
and the Municipal Councillors are not participants in the entire process. If
they are involved, they will have a feeling of ownership towards it.
•
Bringing together a large number of citizens groups and government
officials on a common platform is not an easy task. It requires detailed
planning and coordinated action for holding preliminary meetings,
interactions and whole gamut of logistical arrangements.
•
A Mid-Term Impact Assessment was done by ACORD. The assessment
has indicated that people have by and large appreciated the Programme
but the government officials are required to be sensitised further. There is
resistance from the field level government officers who are not willing to
step out of their bureaucratic shell and embrace the direct interaction with
citizen groups. They feel it is erosion of their authority.
•
The RWAs felt that the response from the junior officers was not as good
as by the seniors. Certain agencies like PWD are not present in the
workshops. Few officials turn up for the meetings and some departments
are not at all represented. Also, due to the inter-departmental jurisdictions
(DDA, MCD, NDMC, Cantonment Boards) the problem of bad roads,
drains and sewer is not getting solved.
•
The officials perceive that bureaucratic procedures and financial
constraints need to be reduced/eliminated. Some of them felt that some
issues required policy-change and was hence beyond their purview. They
found that the RWAs are not coming forward to identify and educate the
people, for example, in the use of water meters. Plantation takes place but
follow up is done consistently.
•
Bhagidari has so far been with registered associations. The challenge is
now step out with the Programme into slum clusters, resettlement colonies
and unauthorised areas. The high rate of migration and growth of slums on
a continuous basis and an alienated and aggressive city culture adds to the
challenge.
•
Right now the Government provides all resources and does all the
monitoring and management. It now faces the challenge of mobilising
private sector participation for financial and expert systems; and
•
There is need for institutionalisation of the Bhagidari model. The process
is at a critical stage and citizen groups’ expectations are high. There is a
clear need for careful institutionalisation, structural and legal evolution
and a balanced empowerment. A good institutional framework is needed
so that citizens’ partnership in good governance becomes a permanent part
of the structure and processes.
Even this process of further evolution and institutionalisation has to be
consultative and participative. Inclusiveness and participation has to
extend to those who are not yet involved in the process. There has to be a
clear form and structure based on functional and organisational logic. The
officials perceived that the process should be institutionalised so that it
continues regardless of individuals in the leadership positions.
10.6 BHAGIDARI: A MODEL OF GOOD GOVERNANCE
Despite the above-mentioned limitations Bhagidari can be termed as a model of
good governance. It is most consistent and relevant in the present realm of
democratic governance. It attempts to go beyond the norms and practices of the
traditional administration and gives a new meaning to the present day governance.
•
The interaction through face-to-face dialogue has brought a paradigm shift
in the way governance was perceived. Traditionally, interaction was just
the grievance expression and grievance handling. But Bhagidari has
brought a shift in this paradigm to a relationship where both the citizens
and the officials identify the solutions to the issues of common concern,
work together to implement the agreed solutions and improve the quality
of life. Most of the participants feel that it has reduced the feeling of
helplessness. They now have a feeling, ‘we can find and implement
solutions together with government’. Bhagidari has set a base for a good
relationship between the citizens and officials.
•
In the Workshops based on Large Group Dynamics for Strategic Change,
each RWA along with local area officials focus on live priorities and
problems and solutions appropriate to local conditions are discussed,
agreed and implemented upon. There is achievement of common ground
even when stakeholders come from different mindsets and adversarial
positions. This sets room where diverse views can be vent. Over 3000
concrete solutions were implemented within months of each workshop in
the first four years. Thus the time taken for solution-implementation
becomes minimal. It has reduced unnecessary delays, red-tapism and
corruption in administration.
•
The office bearers of the citizen groups have been issued ID cards. This
has empowered the Bhagidar citizen groups and legitimised their role in
sustaining partnership. This has helped in building a feeling of ownership
among the citizens as well as the government officials.
•
The Right to Information is a giant step taken. The officials have to give
all relevant information pertaining to their department/agencies to the
RWAs. This has increased accessibility and transparency. Also, officials
are not operating in a centralised fashion. They are devolving duties to the
RWAs and are sharing forums with them in problem solving. All this has
ensconced faith in the administration.
•
RWAs have come forward voluntarily to share responsibilities. They are
networking with other RWAs and bringing out newsletters- ‘Bhagidari
Masik Patrika’. Hence, with network management there is more
cooperation and coordination in finding and implementing solutions. This
has changed the old adversarial relationship. A cooperative partnership
has taken shape with greater accessibility. Actual solutions and real
working out has become possible.
•
The Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India has
introduced performance appraisal for all officers of the Delhi Government
on their specific contributions during each year towards sustaining
Bhagidari in the form of citizen-centric administration. This has
institutionalised Bhagidari concept in the civil service. This has ensured
accountability in solving problems and sustained interest of officials in the
partnership scheme to implement the solutions.
•
This mechanism of feedback and review meetings held by the CMO with
the RWAs and PUDs has given the citizens an access to the CMO and to
Heads of Departments. This has made the RWAs feel empowered and
they have become ready to take on the responsibility of checking,
overseeing and monitoring the departments/agencies. This has created
accountability and transparency. Bhagidari has given a voice to the
citizens on the issues that concern and affect them and hold the
utility/civic agencies accountable for their actions. On the other hand,
RWAs have become sensitive to the problems of the utility/civic agencies
and have started offering help and suggestions to their field level officials;
and
•
RWAs and the RWA Federations are live examples and models of
community and civil society. They join the Programme voluntarily
thinking in terms of the larger public interests. The LGIWs are the forums
to provide dialogue and discourse among the administrators and the
people. It is here that the citizen groups meet the officials face-to-face and
interact. The problems are sorted out, solutions are agreed upon jointly
and both work together to implement them. This has made horizontal
decision making possible.
10.7 CONCLUSION
Bhagidari model, where there is a constant positive pressure building up from the
top by the HOD’s and CMO and by the RWAs from the bottom, is building a
positive pressure on the utility/civic agencies to perform and show results. The
RWAs have also started taking responsibility for implementing the action points.
With RWAs participating the people now have faith and trust in the government.
Bhagidari has helped the PUDs and the CSAs in solving the day-to-day problems
of the people on one hand and on the other it has provided help to them in
maintenance and upgradation of services. It has also made them to adhere to
democratic and professional values. This has enabled a non-partisan approach in
their attitude and functioning.
Models like Bhagidari can be replicated in developing countries to improve
governance. This Model can secure accountability, trust and transparency and
rebuild an effective and responsible administrative culture. For this purpose, there
is need to engage the citizens and communities to partner with the government for
collective action. Hence, there is need:
•
to build communities;
•
to have government encouragement and political will to reach out to the
communities and citizens;
•
to have democratic forums at the ground level for participative and
collective action;
•
to educate citizens in collaborative and participative governance;
•
to have self-inclined and motivated communities; and
•
to sensitise administrators and provide incentives and assurances to them.
10.8 KEY CONCEPT
Bhagidari (Hindi Term): Partnership
Bhagidar (Hindi Term): Partner
Divisional Commissioner: Administrative head of division having districts under
them.
Deputy Commissioner: Administrative head of the district (Revenue).
Area Officials: They are officials below the Sub-Division Officers (SDOs) and
are of the rank of Block Officials.
Large Group Dynamics: Processes and techniques utilised by social scientists
and organisational consultants to facilitate community change, or organisation
change.
10.9 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS
•
Reports, Bhagidari The Citizen-Government Partnership, Government of
NCT of Delhi
•
King, C., S., and C., Stivers, 1998, Government is Us: Public
Administration in an Anti-Government Era, Thousand Oaks, Sage, CA
•
Vinzant, J., and L., Crothers, 1998, Street-Level Leadership: Discretion
and Legitimacy in Frontline Public Service, Georgetown University Press,
Washington DC
•
Terry, L., D., 1993, Why We Should Abandon the Misconceived Quest to
Reconcile Public Entrepreneurship with Democracy, PAR, 53(4)
•
Denhardt, J., V., and R., B., Denhardt, 2003, The New Public Service
Serving, Not Steering, M., E., Sharpe, Armonk
•
Barry, Hindness, Representative Government and Participatory
Democracy, in Andrew Vandenberg, ed., 2000, Citizenship and
Democracy in a Global Era, Macmillan Press Ltd., Houndmills
•
Vigoda, Eran, From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance,
Citizens and the Next Generation of Public Administration, in PAR, Sept/
Oct., 2002, Vol.62, No.5
10.10 ACTIVITIE
1)
Explain the need of partnership between the government and citizens at
the local levels.
2)
Do you see Bhagidari programme of the Government of Delhi reflects the
partnership between government and citizens at the local level?